Exactly, you will never see the types of gains that have already been seen.  The law of large numbers takes over and it's just impossible to keep doubling in value at the same rate at this point. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see bitcoin's returns just mirror the stock market at large.

This is not correct. No Binance entity is permitted to engage in any activities regulated by the FCA.  It doesn't matter where a company is based, you cannot operate in the UK in regulated activities without a regulatory license.  Neither binance.com nor any other Binance entity can engage in derivatives, market-making or other regulated activities. Further, the ban has caused several large banks to suspend payments to binance.com for regular crypto purchases.  And even further, the FCA has a deadline of March 31, 2022 by which crypto asset businesses must register in order to continue trading in the UK.

I don't think too many businesses adopted crypto as a payment option so much as adopted mainstream electronic payment platforms such as PayPal and Square as payment options.  The COVID-19 pandemic pushed forward digitalization, not necessarily crypto adoption.

It's a cheeky move, but nothing more than an avenue for people to register their disapproval of his massive accumulation of wealth.  I don't necessarily have a problem with his wealth, except I think the tax system does need to be overhauled and wealth in the multi billions needs to be taxed.  I reckon a lot of the signers of that petition feel the same way.

As a charity focused on vaccine development and distribution which requires the infrastructure and scientific proficiency of the US, not to mention operating in the US, the vast majority of economic activity directly attributable to the charity's activities I would expect goes to the benefit of the US economy.  Your 1% "as far as you know" is laughably inaccurate, but also embarrassing since you've never tried to know the truth with any degree of accuracy.  How about doing some basic research instead of making wildly inaccurate assumptions about things you don't know the slightest bit about?

Even though the charity focuses on the developing world where they feel the improvements they make in health infrastructure and sanitation will do the most good and save the most lives, in 2019 the charity spent approximately 524 million dollars on US programs with the vast majority going to educational initiatives.  I have no problem with a charity helping the developing world.  Charity is charity, and saving the most lives is what matters.

Well pretty much everything you said was inaccurate.  Modi is currently in the process of being extradited to India, in fact his latest appeal was just rejected by a UK court several days ago.  So not only is the UK not a "safe haven" for criminals, but the specific example you cited proves to be working exactly the opposite of how you keep saying it does.

No, this has literally nothing to do with the global corporate minimum tax, which isn't even in force yet.  It's the norm in the business world for people to wrap up their stints at a company when the executive leadership undergoes a big change.

Amazon is such a behemoth and well-oiled machine that I wouldn't expect a change in leadership to have any impact on the stock price.  Betting against the stock price is asking for losses.

Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are both signatories on the agreement, and Luxembourg's corporate tax rate is already higher than the proposed minimum in the agreement, so I reckon they would sign as well (though can't find definitively if they have already).  The 130 countries that have already signed represent 90% of global GDP, so yeah, my previous point stands unrefuted after your inaccurate post.

I think all Binance would need to do is become FCA compliant, there is no negotiation involved. You either abide by the financial laws in the jurisdictions you operate in, or you get banned. There's really no reason not to comply.

When you say "acquired" you mean developed.  The developed nations have developed the vaccines, and of course they're going to distribute them to their own populations first. As for not distributing vaccines to the poorer nations, you're dead wrong.  The richer nations have been delivering vaccines all throughout 2021.  On top of the 81 million doses that have already been distributed, the US has pledged 500 million more, Japan has pledged one billion dollars towards the effort, and other richer developed nations have also pledged support.

They banned it because it wasn't abiding by the laws.  If binance gets its act together and abides by the financial regulatory laws that already exist, it would be granted a license to operate in the UK.  However my understanding is that this is a company that keeps redomiciling specifically to avoid regulatory oversight, and so they don't appear to be trustworthy.

Also, no, "they" are not okay with fiat being used for illegal activities, which is why there's laws against that and prosecutions.

By transferring it to a charity, which is regulated in how it can spend it, it's no longer the rich person's money, so there's no benefit to them for doing so.  The thing that keeps getting repeated over and over again is that the BMGF is controlled by Bill Gates, like that somehow makes it so he didn't actually donate the money and can spend it however he wants.  That's not true, not even a little, and so continuing to repeat the lie isn't changing the fact that nothing has been done wrong, and nothing shady has happened.

China chased all the miners out of their country.  Even before doing so, they couldn't have staged a 51% attack because they couldn't control all the mining going on in the country.  But now, what was already not feasible has become impossible.

Yes, corporations pay taxes. If you think that if taxes on corporations went away prices would suddenly drop for consumers, you're dreaming.  In fact, we saw this with the corporate tax cut from republicans 3-4 years ago.  Did prices drop?  No.  The executives gave themselves bonuses and bought back company stock, which further enriched the executives with stock options.  I'd rather corporations pay taxes and have an indirect cost passed on to consumers, which will be kept in check by competition, than eliminate corporate taxes and have the tax directly imposed on consumers by the government to make up for the lost revenue.

It's not a nominal change, it's a legal distinction.  Bill Gates does not own indirectly the shares after he donates them because he does not own the charity.  Controlling a the charity is not the same as ownership, and he cannot do whatever he wants with the shares as a principal of the charity because charities are regulated and have to fulfill a charitable mission to keep their tax-exempt status.  So it is 100% wrong to say that Bill Gates indirectly owns the shares or that he can do whatever he wants with them.  So we're back to Bill Gates never realizing any income from the shares, hence no reason for him ever to pay taxes on them.

Yes, you’re most likely right. I would consider the vast majority of the money raised to go towards bitcoin purchases at some point soon after, I just wanted to clarify that the Form D amount listed was not actually the amount of bitcoin purchased.

Ireland’s tax agreements with multi-national companies have been ruled by the court’s to violate EU laws in the past, so Ireland I think is an outlier. 130 countries signed on, there is clearly broad international support. Ireland even agreed in principle, they just think 15% minimum is too high, but their entire pitch to multi-nationals is as a tax haven. If they join a minimum tax pact, there’s no real reason to HQ in Ireland anymore.

This remains to be a dumb idea even though you keep posting it.  That's not how any of this works.  If it is, go find all the times the UK has refused to deport someone because the UK wanted to keep the money the criminals stole and brought to the UK and post them here.  You won't find any because that's not how it works.  Even among conspiracy theories, this one is stupid.

Lol, I'm not a democrat, but I could see how you could make that mistake because some of my beliefs are liberal, but then democrats would accuse me of being a republican because some of my beliefs are libertarian.  Truth is I'm neither.

There's a couple things you're conflating though in my posts.  I'll try to simplify them.

1) I would support a much higher income tax on the top 1% of income earners.  The exact percent can be debated, but what you've probably seen from me before is noting that the top marginal rate used to be in the high 70 percent range not terribly long ago.  That's not the same thing as advocating for a top marginal rate of 70%.  Also, top marginal rate doesn't mean all your income is taxed at 70%.  If you don't understand this, you probably need to research how it works.

2) I would support a wealth tax on the top 1% of the wealthy to cut down on their ability to game the system by passing their estates on through tax loopholes or delaying or avoiding income realization for decades into the future.

3) Avoiding taxes by using the existing laws is not tax evasion.  If Bill Gates legally avoids taxes by exploiting the system as it was written, that's legal.  You do the same thing every time you take a tax deduction on your income taxes, so I'm not blaming anyone for using the law as it is written.  But see point two above about cutting down on the ability to do this.

Now see how these very clear points contrast very sharply with the strawman argument you built for me.  I'm all for lowering the tax rate, but not until the budget is balanced and we stop accumulating debt.  Closing the legal loopholes the rich use to avoid paying taxes will go a long way towards this.  (Also, if you do even the slightest bit of research, you'll find that republicans are the ones holding up tax reform and they are the party that created a slew of new tax loopholes for the wealthy just 3 years ago.)

Thanks, I was thinking along this line as well.  I've footnoted your response so I could take the two points below.

(1) I don't know much about Binance, but Binance scamming is exactly what I'm concerned with. I don't know them to be trustworthy, and there are plenty of operations that present a good game but turn out to be a mess, so I don't give someone the benefit of the doubt just because they talk a good game.  I'm wondering what actual security there is, since one of the few things I know about them is they relocate jurisdictions a lot to avoid regulatory oversight.  This is a major red flag to me.

(2)  Yes, if the coins depreciate more than the interest you earn, you lose more overall.  That's a concern on the investor side though.  I'm wondering how Binance can afford to to pay such high interest yields on deposits (the denomination doesn't matter, anyone paying interest has to make more than the cost of deposits otherwise they lose money).  So from Binance's perspective, if they're paying 45% APY on deposits, they have to earn more than 45% APY equivalent on those deposits otherwise they're just giving money away.  So that raises two questions:  (a) what are they doing with the deposits that allows them to earn more than 45% APY equivalent to make this profitable for them?  If nothing, then (b) if they're losing money on this, this is another huge red flag and suggests it's a scam.  Ponzi schemes aren't concerned with having a viable business plan because the "business plan" is just to incentivize as many deposits as possible by promising ridiculous returns (like 45% APY) because there's no intention of paying all of it back.  So either some investors lose everything because they're the last out of the scam, or everyone loses some when the scam collapses.

So the main concern is if Binance isn't making money by offering this, then everyone who invests in this is at risk (which puts at risk every other Binance depositor too, because insolvency isn't siloed into a particular coin).  And if they are making money on this, how?  If you can't answer this question, I don't think you should be participating in this offer.



The 1.72% over 14 days and 45% annually are the same scaled over different time periods, so it doesn't matter what the duration is.  If you can't make a profit offering 45% on deposits for a year, you can't do it over 14 days either, so the question is why intentionally take on a money-losing endeavor?  If Binance is a scam, you think they're gonna tell you because you asked them?  I'm looking for other thoughtful people who might have information I don't about this.  That's why I raised the question here.  And it's further relevant in this thread because if FUN is owned by this website as was said in this thread, it's a legitimate question for the owners of the coin, especially if they're touting the return potential without regard for whether or not any of this has been vetted.